CNN poll on legalizing marijuana: We’re all in the Choom Gang now

posted at 11:21 am on January 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

There’s nothing unusual about the topline numbers here, although the timeliness of the poll vis-a-vis Colorado’s experimentation with legalization will attract more attention than similar findings from Pew, Quinnipiac, and Gallup. The mind-boggling trendline isn’t news either: It’s on page 2 here if you want the hard numbers, but if you’ve seen one of these polls before, you already know how much things have changed since the early 90s. What makes CNN’s poll interesting is the extensive crosstabs. Most pollsters are usually content with a few basic questions about legalization but CNN went deeper. For instance:

That tells you a lot more about why attitudes are changing than most barebones polls on this topic do. Decades of effort from pro-legalization forces (and personal observation of illegal use) have convinced a majority that weed’s just not that harmful. And that’s not all:

There’s a double-digit difference in the number who see porn as immoral versus pot, to the point where marijuana use is now roughly as acceptable as living with someone without being married. Which, actually, should give you a sense of which demographic is driving most of the opposition. It is indeed grandma and grandpa:

That’s the age split on the basic question of whether using marijuana should or shouldn’t be illegal. The 65+ demographic is not only the sole group to say no, there’s roughly 20 points’ difference between them and the next closest age demographic. That pattern repeats on a slew of weed-related questions. The 50-64 group is usually fairly evenly divided but seniors give the drug thumbs down overwhelmingly. To take one example, when asked whether marijuana use in America is a “very serious” problem, a plurality of seniors (38 percent) say that it is. No other group drew more than 18 percent for that answer. Big, biiiig age gap here, which of course explains the trendlines over the last few decades. As older anti-legalization voters die, they’re replaced in the population by younger pro-legalization ones. David Brooks described “aging out” of pot use in his op-ed last week, but ironically, the country at large is aging out of its opposition to prohibition.

But why? It boils down, I think, to experimentation. Fifty-two percent overall told CNN that they’d tried marijuana in the past. Even among the 50-64 age group, 56 percent copped to having tried it. Among seniors, just 21 percent did. That’s not surprising but it is revealing. The taboo against weed was much stronger before the 1960s, when seniors came of age. They didn’t try it, they accepted that it was banned for a good reason, and those opinions stuck. For just that reason, I’d be curious to see an even deeper subsample showing the split on this issue between younger and older Republicans specifically. GOP voters remain opposed to weed on balance but I suspect that’s more a function of the party skewing older than some firm ideological principle that Republicans of every age adhere to. In fact, when asked whether smoking weed is morally wrong, Republicans now split at a razor-thin 50/49. Given that seniors tilt heavily towards the “immoral” view, it can only mean that younger Republicans disagree.

By the way, lest you think that views of marijuana are part and parcel of lax social views generally, here are two more interesting data points among different age groups from CNN. The first table reflects people’s views on whether having an abortion is moral, the second reflects their views on the morality of homosexuality:

Seniors aren’t always all by their lonesome on “values” issues. It’s young adults who are the outlier in accepting homosexuality as moral on balance. And there’s no significant disparity on abortion at all: You might expect seniors to be adamantly opposed and millennials to be much more permissive, but everyone’s within 10 points of each other. A majority of every age group thinks abortion is immoral, which of course is why even Democratic leaders take care to say that the practice should be “safe, legal — and rare.” They may not believe that last part but most Americans do.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Mind you, that isn’t a good argument for legalization. The cities (or parts thereof) where those things were pervasive were horrid hellholes. A somewhat accurate portrayal of the situation in the second half of the 1800s is in the BBC series Copper. I haven’t seen the second season yet, but the first was an adequately gruesome portrait of parts of 1864 New York City and the first of the ‘professional’ police forces.

terryannonline is right about one thing: our current culture is dragging our country down the tubes. It is right to say that only a moral people can handle a democratic republic as a form of government. And, when society begins encouraging vice (and I think I agree with Arhtur’s statement about the CO law not really ‘encouraging’ vice, per se) it sows the seeds of its own destruction. That encouragement began long before the current effort to legalize marijuana, however, and Miley Cirus is one of the bits of evidence of the ensuing decline.

Along with fighting for our freedom, yes, please pray for the soul of our nation, as well!

terryannonline is right about one thing: our current culture is dragging our country down the tubes. It is right to say that only a moral people can handle a democratic republic as a form of government. And, when society begins encouraging vice (and I think I agree with Arhtur’s statement about the CO law not really ‘encouraging’ vice, per se) it sows the seeds of its own destruction. That encouragement began long before the current effort to legalize marijuana, however, and Miley Cirus is one of the bits of evidence of the ensuing decline.

Along with fighting for our freedom, yes, please pray for the soul of our nation, as well!

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Thank You! That’s all I’m getting at. I really don’t care if pot is legal or not. I care that we live in a society that is so amped for it to be legal.

I remember in college….. the Iraq War had just started and a girl came in to class upset because the dude from Cheech and Chong was arrested for drug use. We were at war and what she cared about was….getting marijuana legal.

I’m not a drug user……so I have nothing to fear when it comes to “police” state.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Gee thats a healthy attitude. I think that we should have the police search every home in america for anything illegal. Or have the NSA read every electronic communication you make. I mean if you got nothing to hide what would be the problem?

He overdosed at a treatment facility in November. Took three shots of Narcan to revive him. He’s been in jail pretty much since, and most of the last year. While in jail, his best friend, 22 years old, overdosed and died. He had been released from jail only days prior and died the day after Thanksgiving. His friends, fearing arrest, would not take him to a hospital; instead, they dumped his body in his parent’s front yard.

I am not an advocate of jailing addicts -though it is useful for the community to give them a safe place to detox. And, there should be consequences for breaking the law. I am an advocate for treatment- an avenue that is poorly maintained in this country.

Legalization will lead to more use. Every addict will confirm that. More people will be introduced into the drug culture. Teen boyfriends will convince teen girlfriends that the only way to get rid of the depression is with heroin. Or oxy. Or they’ll get them on mollys to enhance their relationship. And once that teen begins to cavort with regular users, he or she will begin the process of dispelling everyone who does not use with them. They’ll gravitate toward more and more opportunity and they’ll likely ingest, inject, or otherwise begin using more dangerous drugs. Not necessarily adults, but this is the typical pattern for addicts that began their use during their teen years.

You might want to reread the thread…..GWB has been arguing for the legalization of marijuana.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Not exactly. I have been arguing for decent argumentation from both sides, however. Many of your arguments have come across as very pro-statist. I am NOT an advocate of the government enforcing most morality (I am a natural law sort – those things that are clear in natural law should be the things government enforces, primarily), but I also think pot-smoking being legal will simply drag us further down into the depths of stupid in which we are currently mired.

I also do not think that “relaxing enforcement” is a good idea. It will only breed further contempt for the rule of law – on the part of the citizenry and on the part of law enforcement. And that is an evil of which we already have way too much.

Whoops, my bad, was thinking AJdaddy that has been posting all day on the other thread. Apologies to GWB

snoopicus on January 7, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I’ve been bashing on some of the pro-pot folks, too, since much of their argumentation is specious. Pot is NOT the same as alcohol, and its legalization should be examined on its own merits, not by comparison to the evils of Prohibition. (I propose Capone’s Law as a corollary to Godwin’s Law – the first person to bring up Prohibition in a pot argument loses.)

Legalization will lead to more use. Every addict will confirm that. More people will be introduced into the drug culture. Teen boyfriends will convince teen girlfriends that the only way to get rid of the depression is with heroin. Or oxy. Or they’ll get them on mollys to enhance their relationship. And once that teen begins to cavort with regular users, he or she will begin the process of dispelling everyone who does not use with them. They’ll gravitate toward more and more opportunity and they’ll likely ingest, inject, or otherwise begin using more dangerous drugs. Not necessarily adults, but this is the typical pattern for addicts that began their use during their teen years.

It’s very sad.
BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I often hear the argument that “we’re talking adults here!” but that only begs the question. If dope is legal, then you are saying you’re okay with kids looking forward to that first legal high. You’re okay with college freshman hanging with seniors who smoke dope.

Unless you’re a Libertarian, by advocating decriminalization you’re basically saying you think smoking dope is a net positive for people and for society in general.

Well stated.
However, I would say there are some comparisons to be made between prohibition and the drug war.
I’m not comparing pot to alcohol, so much as comparing how the illegality of each led to the growth of the mobs/gangs running the black market (illegal, and therefore untaxed) commerce of the product – leading to a subsequent growth of government law enforcement units, in both size and power (and therefore cost). And in both cases, as the battle progressed over time, both sides have gotten more and more violent and ruthless.

I’m not comparing pot to alcohol, so much as comparing how the illegality of each led to the growth of the mobs/gangs running the black market

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Good point, since you make it explicit.

I think, though, some of the differences between the two products will have an impact on the evolution/de-evolution of that. I believe marijuana is a more pernicious drug than alcohol (which only got labeled as a drug through the efforts of MADD and DARE and such) in ways that will make illicit acquisition/production remain more common than with alcohol. This *might* be a result of the continued state regulation – but it is still a difference from alcohol which also retains state regulation of its production, commerce, and consumption.

Notice I said I believe this to be so. I am not arguing this as a point of logic, and am welcome to evidence to the contrary. (That does not mean “I know lots of pot-smokers” anecdotes – that is not ‘evidence’.)

(That last paragraph wasn’t aimed at you, Arthur, but at others who might jump prematurely on some of my statements.)

Agreed. And to be clear, I’m not an advocate for legalization. That doesn’t mean I think the way the forward is the status quo, nor do I think the “drug war” is a proxy “police state”. There should be a drug war, but it should be focused on the distributors and not the users.

Most users however, will enter the criminal justice system anyway as rarely does an addict have the legal means to support his illegal habit. Which, by the way, is how the majority of users end up incarcerated and how the statistics for “jailed for possession” are inflated.

So what you are saying that we are currently living in a police state and I don’t think we are.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I don’t see that as a distinct black and white line where at some point, bang, we’re in a police state, when we weren’t yesterday.

However, I think we are progressing heavily in that direction. The government keeps making more activities, and products/items, illegal, and it has gotten to the point where everyone could potentially be arrested for something, at the pure discretion of some government employee.

As partial proof of that, I would offer what seems to be the ever-increasing news reports of police no-knock raids, often on the wrong house, where innocent people are getting terrorized, injured and killed – and it seems far too often the answer is “oh sorry, our bad – but these things happen – suck it up” – and far too often none of the offending police are punished for what they’ve done.
THAT appears to me to be solid evidence of some level of police state.

You and your son’s problems with heroin do not constitute a justification to deny me and other adults the freedom to recreate with pot. It is not even the same drug, for crying out loud, let alone a non-sequitur. That would be like someone whose child dies of crack declaring that tobacco be outlawed because of it.

They are rude, arrogant and prone to violence. They abuse and neglect their spouses and children. They smell like cheap wine and urine. They disregard the laws of this country and provide the vast majority of alcohol that is available to teenagers.

You and your son’s problems with heroin do not constitute a justification to deny me and other adults the freedom to recreate with pot. It is not even the same drug, for crying out loud, let alone a non-sequitur. That would be like someone whose child dies of crack declaring that tobacco be outlawed because of it.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM

We want to know which drugs you consider safe for recreating? Please tell us.

Whether you really believe that or not, or are just tossing up a strawman, the simple argument is that alcohol is already legal. Attempting to criminalize something that is legal is much different than legalizing something criminal.

If your true position is that all intoxicants be banned, then I guess you’re at least consistent. But my guess is that you want pot legalized and you’ll use alcohol as your argument. Not going to work, for a whole host of reasons.

So what you are saying that we are currently living in a police state and I don’t think we are.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 3:32 PM

In general terms, I believe we have reached that point, yes. In specifics, there are still plenty of places where the local police are good guys who don’t have a fascist bone in their bodies. But, even at that…
– if I go to fly on a commercial airliner today, I will be treated as guilty-until-proven-innocent and scanned or probed in ways that a city policeman couldn’t do without a warrant.
– if I then clear that screening, and happen to purchase a bottle of water, that bottle can be opened and examined by the same groups of government representatives before I board the flight.
– if I cross the border of the US today (as a CITIZEN!) they can take my laptop and search through its contents, which a city policeman couldn’t do without a warrant (and BP can do it without even probable cause).
– if I happen to get stopped by the wrong policeman in NM, and he calls out the wrong police dog, who happens to think he smells drugs in my behind, I might be subjected to numerous invasive medical procedures (and billed for it!) and forced to ingest materials to make me defecate – without a valid warrant.
– if I happen to be married/related to someone who committed fraud on their college loan applications, “enforcement officers” who are armed for combat in Falujah might come knock down my door without warning and hold me and mine at gunpoint – even if the alleged offender hasn’t lived there for months.
– if I happen to be driving along on some fine evening, a policeman could order me to the side of the road and ask me to take a breathalyzer, even if he has no reason for doing so; and, when told “no, I don’t think I’ll give up my 4th Amendment rights” he could refuse to let me go on my way until I comply.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure I can come up with other examples with some web-searching. And that’s without resorting to such places as InfoWars or Alex jones.

I have to be very clear on this. You cannot argue FOR legalization of marijuana unless you can state your position on other drugs. Legalization of intoxicants cannot be done in a vacuum, and your answer on the other drugs determines the consistency of your position.

I am adamantly opposed to drug use. That’s me. But I’m willing to listen to consistent arguments. Legalizing only pot is not consistent. It doesn’t address the whole rest of the spectrum that then comes into play.

So, if you want to legalize pot, please explain what you would do about the rest of the panoply. More potent variations of pot like hash or hash oil? Opiods, ranging from opium itself all the way to heroin? Barbituates? Amphetamines, including meth? How about synthetic pot?

Give me a reasoned, cohesive strategy that we can discuss, not just “LEGALIZE POT BECAUSE ALCOHOL” or “LEGALIZE POT BECAUSE NANNY-STATE”!

I think AJsDaddie does ask the right question, but it needs more definition to be answered. The question becomes “On what basis will we make some items illegal to create/distribute/possess/ingest?” The other important question is “How do we treat those things once we’ve decided on which side of the line they fall?”

Unfortunately, many of the pro-legalization folks aren’t making arguments that help answer either of those two questions in a reasonable fashion. Of course, neither are some of the pro-criminalization folks. Establish your principles, then argue from those principles. (Full-throated libertarians are generally consistent on this topic, btw; though, they need to admit that they are basically arguing for a principle of hedonism.)

Except of course, the fact that recreational drug use often leads to dependency, especially among teens.

And I find it a little odd that in a discussion about drug addiction, you try to equate some knowledge of it by saying you recently quit smoking. As if quitting smoking is one tenth as difficult as quitting opiates.

Question then: If a person smokes weed but for some reason is unable to legally acquire the funds to support his habit and begins some form of illegal acquisition of those funds, should he then be disciplined by the Court for said behavior?

Okay. Well, you’re wrong on point one. But, we could argue that until tomorrow. There are stoners from the 60’s that will swear up and down that they’ve been smoking weed every day since 1968 and it’s not at all habit-forming. Be that as it may, I haven’t argued that point here.

First of all, pot is not habit forming. That said, if someone steals, for example, to buy weed then yes, they should be prosecuted.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Wikipedia is (not) your friend: “Cannabis dependence or cannabis use disorder is defined in the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) as a condition requiring treatment.”

The “dependence” or “addiction” words have been so watered down as to apply to just about anything, including sugar. Pot it not physically addictive. Some people report psychological cravings for it, just like some do for sugar.

Professionals love to make diagnoses that they can then get paid to treat. Expect the list to grow under ObamaCare’s substance abuse treatment provisions.

I have to be very clear on this. You cannot argue FOR legalization of marijuana unless you can state your position on other drugs.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Ok, fair enough. First off I would say that, as a generalization, drugs are bad, but the cure, the costly brutal police, is worse.

But actually, and this is a major major major thing, the police state, no matter how brutal, no matter how costly, no matter how much it infringes on our privacy and freedom, is not even a cure — the War on Drugs makes drugs abuse worse! At least that’s what the evidence from Portugal and elsewhere strongly suggests, that, counter-intuitively, but actually there’s a logic to this, as in Portugal where they decriminalized ALL drugs in 2001, and drug use and addiction has been reduced — dramatically actually. As usual, I link to the collection of youtube videos on Portugal, consider the issue for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=portugal+drug+decriminalization&sm=1

Same question to you that I posed to MJ: If a person smokes weed [crack, meth, shoots meth, coke, dope, etc] but for some reason is unable to legally acquire the funds to support his habit and begins some form of illegal acquisition of those funds, should he then be disciplined by the Court for said behavior?

Ummm, the same way that you treat any other burglary/theft? Why would stealing to support a drug habit be treated any differently than stealing to buy lotto tickets or booze or place horse race bets? Motive is not an element of those crimes, nor is it a factor in sentencing.

The War on Drugs makes drugs abuse worse! At least that’s what the evidence from Portugal and elsewhere strongly suggests, that, counter-intuitively, but actually there’s a logic to this, as in Portugal where they decriminalized ALL drugs in 2001, and drug use and addiction has been reduced

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM

You have to do a little more research. For example:

Although the study’s authors documented that “problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use” dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.

And even the guys that wrote that study didn’t say that it was decriminalization that necessarily caused the drop in IV drug use; it could have been the rise in treatment options that also happened at the same time. In my experience, treatment lowers drug use while availability increases it. To suggest otherwise is indeed counter-intuitive.

Me, I’m all for increasing treatment options for users but at the same time stiffening penalties for sale and distribution.

But you’d have to prohibit the use of the drug at that point, right? That is, if one were committing illegal acts to fund his drug use.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

No. That makes no sense at all. Why should people who can afford to buy pot not be permitted to? What does that fact that some can’t have to do with it? Should the fact that some people will steal to buy donuts mean that donuts should be outlawed?

But you’d have to prohibit the use of the drug at that point, right? That is, if one were committing illegal acts to fund his drug use.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

No. That would be a stupid argument. Notice I said:

Motive is not an element of those crimes, nor is it a factor in sentencing.

That means that if you bring it up in a court of law (one with a judge who actually is law-abiding) during a trial for theft/burglary, it will get objected to and the question or statement will be stricken from the record, and the jury will be instructed to ignore it. It has no bearing on the crime being tried. It might not get stricken from the record during sentencing, but it is supposed to not be a factor.

Although the study’s authors documented that “problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use” dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 4:36 PM

That’s actually an explainable caveat. “Problem drug use,” as heroin, did drop significantly. Use of marijuana did increase, but that was in line with increase in use of marijuana that occurred across all of Europe (despite mj being illegal in most of Europe). Check out the Portugal videos and you see that drug ABUSE dropped substantially.

@BKeyser. Yes, illegal activity to raise funds (robbery, fraud etc) is a real non-victimless. Drug use, even selling drugs (mutual consent involved in transaction like toboccco or alcohol transactions), assuming the drugs are not cut with poisons, is a victimless “crime.” If you are going to go after drug dealers as dastardly purveyors of evil, go after other sellers of other bad things like alcohol then. Also, as far as suppressing “pushers,” consider this:

At the core of the failure of mass incarceration to stem narcotics trafficking is a simple economic truth: You can’t shut down a business in a labor-rich economy by restricting low-wage labor. There is an inexhaustible supply of people that are eager to take those “jobs” as others are arrested. The barriers to entry in the field of drug dealing are very low; all that is required is a willingness to break the law, and a large number of people possess that quality.

Certainly. Then there’s also logic. How many gainfully employed drug addicts do you suppose there are? Ever been to an N/A meeting? Ever spoken to someone who would sell their last meal, the clothes off their back, their child in order to not be sick from withdrawal? (And no, I’m not talking about pot. Obviously.)

All I’m saying is that unlike some things, drug use among certain people chemically alters their makeup. Their brain changes. Among teens, regular pot use can stunt their intellectual growth. For some, abstinence allows a rebuilding, but for others, not. And once you’re addicted, there often isn’t anything you wouldn’t do or anyone you wouldn’t hurt in order to satisfy your cravings.

But you’d have to prohibit the use of the drug at that point, right? That is, if one were committing illegal acts to fund his drug use.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I don’t buy that at all. I don’t care WHY someone steals, or what they buy with the proceeds of the theft. They should be punished for the theft – which as GWB stated – is in and of itself illegal.
I wouldn’t let someone off for robbing a bank just because they used the money to buy their kids Christmas presents, or food, alcohol, or pot. You rob a bank, you go to jail (period).

Apparently you’re not familiar with the many “Drug Courts” in session today.

In what world would someone who smokes weed, then steals money from his neighbor to buy weed, is arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of theft would not have a prohibition on the use of weed added to his sentence? If was just placed on probation, there would likely be an abstention order.

Ah, I see. I don’t know. Can’t see how it matters to whether pot should be legalized.

All I’m saying is that unlike some things, drug use among certain people chemically alters their makeup. Their brain changes. Among teens, regular pot use can stunt their intellectual growth. For some, abstinence allows a rebuilding, but for others, not. And once you’re addicted, there often isn’t anything you wouldn’t do or anyone you wouldn’t hurt in order to satisfy your cravings.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Oh. You mean like the way cigarettes affects people. I wouldn’t know anything about that, right? I can tell you first hand that it is not physically addictive, like cigarettes. I don’t recall actually killing anyone for a smoke but it could have happened, I suppose, during one of my maniacal smoke-craving episodes. Never happened when I was stoned, I’m sure of that.

That’s actually an explainable caveat. “Problem drug use,” as heroin, did drop significantly. Use of marijuana did increase, but that was in line with increase in use of marijuana that occurred across all of Europe (despite mj being illegal in most of Europe). Check out the Portugal videos and you see that drug ABUSE dropped substantially.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Please, read the actual study and especially the comments of the researchers themselves, who said in part “it [is] impossible to attribute any changes in drug use or related harm directly to the fact or form of the Portuguese decriminalization”.

You say ABUSE went down, but differentiating between use and abuse is a very subjective term. The fact is, drug use went way, way up. And that’s pretty much the conclusion any normal person would come to: legalize drugs, drug use goes up.

My point goes to enforcement. There will be occasions, even in Colorado, where pot will remain illegal. It is for children now -I assume you would agree with that notion. And it should be for anyone who abuses the drug. And by abuse, I mean anyone who engages in some illegal activity as a result of their drug use.

So, from a freedom standpoint, I’m not seeing how legalizing it makes people freer. The police won’t go away. Narcotics units won’t go away. If someone is given an abstention order, someone has to monitor and police that. And through it all, no one who casually smokes weed every once in awhile- in Colorado or anywhere else in this country- is being harassed, arrested, prosecuted and jailed for doing so.

But some people will become addicts who otherwise would not. And some people will be victimized by addicts who otherwise would not. And public money will be spent on people who become addicts and their victims which otherwise would not. I don’t see it as a reasonable trade-off.

But, to each his own. I’m not trying to convert you, I’m just offering a perspective from someone who has been dealing with this issue for nearly 5 years now. I don’t recommend it.

Oh. You mean like the way cigarettes affects people. I wouldn’t know anything about that, right? I can tell you first hand that it is not physically addictive, like cigarettes. I don’t recall actually killing anyone for a smoke but it could have happened, I suppose, during one of my maniacal smoke-craving episodes. Never happened when I was stoned, I’m sure of that.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Pot is habituating. People lie, cheat and steal to fund their habit. They lose friends, family, loved ones, even children to the drug.

Does every user go reefer crazy? Nope. But then again, some people smoke crack and don’t lose their mind. There are absolutely regular, high-functioning heroin users right along with the high-functioning alcoholics.

The fact that you aren’t addicted to dope doesn’t mean it doesn’t destroy lives.

No, but you obviously are. You conflate additional crimes with elements of a crime. Elements of a crime are the things necessary to be provem true in order to convict someone of the crime. Anything that is not those elements is irrelevant to proving the crime. Motive is an element in very few crimes. Intent might be, but motive is not.

As far as sentencing, additional crimes do impact sentencing. So, if someone is caught for burglary, and they also had drugs in their possession, then it might be an aggravating factor in theri sentencing. But, it has nothing to do with why they committed the burglary.

You obviously don’t get to a Courtroom very often. See my response to GWB, above.

How have my arguments been pro-statist? terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM

That’s about the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Because e.g. you want the state to jail people for growing marijuana in their basements for personal use.

Maybe they should be imprisoned for owning certain books too. I’m not saying that you believe that, but it’s the same principle: the state knows better than we do what we should do with our minds.

“Oh, but it’s a gateway drug.” Having been gone for a couple hours I haven’t read every post, not assuming you’ve said that or not, but yeah, because it’s illegal it puts users into contact with people who sell other illegal drugs.

Real drug addicts need medical treatment -at their own expense- not prison -at my expense- and exposure to the horrors of prison, fines, a criminal record, and so on. You are heartless enough to want that for drug users. I’m not.

The violence and profit in illegal drugs are factors of their illegality and the risk associated with being a criminal. I haven’t heard of many liquor store owners killing other liquor store owners because they were horning in on their turf.

You obviously don’t get to a Courtroom very often. See my response to GWB, above.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM

I saw your response to GWB – and I disagree.
The reason they do that now is because the drug use itself is also illegal – so they tack that on as an additional charge and/or additional punishment. If the drug use itself was not illegal, there would be no reason to tack on the drug restriction.
How much time do you spend in courts?
Have you ever seen the court apply sentencing to a theft or robbery conviction and tack on restrictions against purchase or use of alcohol, food, cars, or anything else?
All thieves do not necessarily spend their money on drugs, or at least it can’t always be proven that’s where the money went.

If someone commits theft/robbery, why should it matter what they intend to use the money for?

Pot is habituating. People lie, cheat and steal to fund their habit. They lose friends, family, loved ones, even children to the drug.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM

This is very often true – at least more often than some pro-legalization folks would admit. And, from this point, you make a good argument – it destroys lives, so we should be careful with how we handle it. Amen to that.

My arguments are not with this statement, but with your silly argument about theft/burglary and other crimes being motivated by drug use. Your argument there fails because your premise is untrue (or you’ve badly worded it).

And, btw, I *have* had academic legal training. Arthur probably has, too, based on what I recall of his ‘year’. It is minimal, but it is adequate (along with self-instruction over the years, and listening to intelligent, knowledgeable people who schooled me) to know about things like the elements of a crime.

My point goes to enforcement. There will be occasions, even in Colorado, where pot will remain illegal. It is for children now -I assume you would agree with that notion. And it should be for anyone who abuses the drug. And by abuse, I mean anyone who engages in some illegal activity as a result of their drug use.

I find that to be a funny way to put it. I would not consider committing illegal acts to finance purchase of a drug to be abuse of that drug.

So, from a freedom standpoint, I’m not seeing how legalizing it makes people freer. The police won’t go away. Narcotics units won’t go away. If someone is given an abstention order, someone has to monitor and police that. And through it all, no one who casually smokes weed every once in awhile- in Colorado or anywhere else in this country- is being harassed, arrested, prosecuted and jailed for doing so.

Narcotics units and other enforcement measures, along with search warrants, criminal prosecutions, impoundment/confiscation of property, surveillance and all the rest will most certainly be curtailed when the government no longer has an interest in whether citizens smoke pot.

But some people will become addicts who otherwise would not. And some people will be victimized by addicts who otherwise would not. And public money will be spent on people who become addicts and their victims which otherwise would not. I don’t see it as a reasonable trade-off.

But, to each his own. I’m not trying to convert you, I’m just offering a perspective from someone who has been dealing with this issue for nearly 5 years now. I don’t recommend it.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:09 PM

No, pot is not addictive, so some people will not become addicts. As for treatment, etc, I see the cost of the war on weed in terms of blood, treasure and liberty to far outweigh the costs of assistance for those for whom it may be a problem.

I think AJsDaddie does ask the right question, but it needs more definition to be answered. The question becomes “On what basis will we make some items illegal to create/distribute/possess/ingest?” The other important question is “How do we treat those things once we’ve decided on which side of the line they fall?”

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM

And perhaps more importantly, we have to stop demonizing those who want the answers. If you’re that sure that decriminalization is a good thing, then you ought to be able to present that position with clarity and precision, and without rancor.

Many of my positions come from life lessons learned and they could easily be personal crusades, but I try to temper all of my opinions through the lens of an overarching ideology, which in my case is strongly grounded in constitutional conservatism.

It’s interesting, because in my world I’d prefer the government to have as little say in my life as possible, but since I’m not a Libertarian I recognize that some regulation is required. And the use of drugs – substances which alter the very behavior and mental faculties of the population – seems to be an area that could use some regulation.

Pot is habituating. People lie, cheat and steal to fund their habit. They lose friends, family, loved ones, even children to the drug.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM

My arguments are not with this statement, but with your silly argument about theft/burglary and other crimes being motivated by drug use. Your argument there fails because your premise is untrue (or you’ve badly worded it).

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Heh. You might have me confused with BKeyser. I don’t even play a lawyer on television, and I rarely stay at Holiday Inns. :)

Maybe you missed above where I indicated that my son is a heroin addict. He’s locked up now, but as he is part of the Carroll County Maryland Drug Court program, when he’s not incarcerated he has court every other Friday. I’m there often. Prior to being placed on Drug Court, he was prosecuted for many of the crimes I’ve been talking about; theft, false check-writing, etc. And in every single one of his convictions, he was ordered to abstain from alcohol and drug use.

As was nearly every single other criminal defendant in the District Courtroom. Most often in the case of domestic disputes and just as often when no evidence of alcohol or drug use was admitted.

I can’t believe you’re not aware of this. Maybe it’s just a Maryland thing- but I promise you, it happens all the time.

Pot destroys no more lives than sugar does. How many people become obese, develop diabetes and other life threatening conditions due their appetites for sweets? Ditto for cigarettes? Ditto for alcohol. All of which are legal. The latter 2 are proven to be chemically addictive, unlike pot.

You’re neglecting your responsibilities at school, work, or home (e.g. flunking classes, skipping work, neglecting your children) because of your drug use.
You’re using drugs under dangerous conditions or taking risks while high, such as driving while on drugs, using dirty needles, or having unprotected sex.
Your drug use is getting you into legal trouble, such as arrests for disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, or stealing to support a drug habit.
Your drug use is causing problems in your relationships, such as fights with your partner or family members, an unhappy boss, or the loss of old friends.

Also, you need to stop implying that I’m talking about addiction to weed. I’m not. However, you’ll not likely meet a drug addict who was not introduced to the drug culture through weed. That is causation for those folks.